BGForums

How do you think it will turn out? please motivate, no flaming.

I chose "occupation/guerrilla war".

A: I don't think Obama will be able to stomach losing, and right now it does not look like air strikes are going to really help 1,000 cowards who don't know whether to shoot the air, run away or both.

B: What on Earth causes you to think that the Libyans would become the one Arab/Muslim country on earth that is not constantly undergoing the throes of guerrilla/terrorist warfare? Muslims blow each other up and behead each other as a way to blow off steam after Mosque. Countries that haven't had conflict in decades experience such attacks. Fresh off a Civil war? With "The Great Satan" stomping around the streets? hahahahaha!! Do you think Libya will be different than Iraq just because The Great Obama is running the show?

Just saying....

(Edit: Didn't mean this as a "flame". Only expressing my conviction that this is a total clusterfark.)

-Light

Muslims blow each other up and behead each other as a way to blow off steam after Mosque.

I chose occupation/guerrilla war. I dont think the air strikes will be enough as the rebels look like they are running out of steam and Gadaffi's land forces seem to be fairing quite well at wearing them down.

fool wrote:

Muslims blow each other up and behead each other as a way to blow off steam after Mosque.

You will carefully note the complete absence of the word "All" directly preceding the word "Muslims". If you would care to start a discussion thread about the multitudinous examples of enraged Muslims leaving Mosque and proceeding directly into violent confrontation with each other, I would be happy to do so. I wasn't flaming each and every single Muslim, but it is a factual observation nonetheless.

-Light

Just heard on the news that Egyptian and American forces has started training "special forces", so I think that Gaddafi's days are numbered now if he soon starts getting trained rebels/soldiers against him, but I wonder will the coalition be able to keep from intervening with a land force. The coalition has clearly picked a side, but I think the coalition should be neutral and force both sides to the negotiation table. Also the Anti-Gaddafi side has been reported that they are using child soliders. So is the new regime after Gaddafi going to be any better?

Anyway I can't decide between "Anti-gaddafi victory, but I don't still think democracy will prevail", "Anti-gaddafi victory" and "Coalition occupation, start of a guerilla/terrorist war". These are as of now the options I am considering to vote on.

i choose that gadafi will die ,because i am almost 100% sure that there will be no ground forces sent to libya from either NATO or the USA ,for many reasons & because the air strikes done by NATO as of last night will become more effective because a coordination has started with the leaders of the revolution in libya which will help provide air cover for them ,&although the revolutionists are not well trained but they have large number & if they manage to re take sirte & misrata ,they will prevail in this war hopefully

I picked "Anti-gaddafi victory", I am quite sure they will win but, I think it might become tight with the democracy part.

Honestly, no one would like my opinion. Anyone who uses military force to querrel a protest kind of needs a kick in the rear. Though if he/she uses military to kill their own people needs a worst action against them. A Bin Laden moment.

sa_3_d911 wrote:i choose that gadafi will die ,because i am almost 100% sure that there will be no ground forces sent to libya from either NATO or the USA ,for many reasons & because the air strikes done by NATO as of last night will become more effective because a coordination has started with the leaders of the revolution in libya which will help provide air cover for them ,&although the revolutionists are not well trained but they have large number & if they manage to re take sirte & misrata ,they will prevail in this war hopefully

Ä°nshallah all the rebels will succeed.

My opinion is to let them alone and solve their own problems. All of this happens because of their oil not civilian deaths. A few hundreds civilians died and it's named masacre. What about Birmania (Myanmar) where 100.000's died and nobody go over there to stop the killings. The intervention in Lybia is very suspect.
Every country has the right to chose their own type of goverment (Democracy, Communism, Dictatorship. . .) Its not good to covert a country to another type of government with military actions, it's like catholic missionars trying to convert koreans to their religion - they got kicked out or executed for that.

stephen wrote:My opinion is to let them alone and solve their own problems. All of this happens because of their oil not civilian deaths. A few hundreds civilians died and it's named masacre. What about Birmania (Myanmar) where 100.000's died and nobody go over there to stop the killings. The intervention in Lybia is very suspect.
Every country has the right to chose their own type of goverment (Democracy, Communism, Dictatorship. . .) Its not good to covert a country to another type of government with military actions, it's like catholic missionars trying to convert koreans to their religion - they got kicked out or executed for that.

Vietnam for example, massive forced conversions to Catholicism sparked the divide and not to mention the banishment of Buddhism.

Typical Western meddling going to hell.

Hmm, I think I have slightly changed my position, Anti-Gaddafi forces will 'win', but I have lost belief in the rebel gov and we might see a continued civil war between factions within the Rebel gov. We could even see a Somalia scenario. Will be interesting to se if I where correct

I continually am amazed at the basic irrationality of the international community and UN.

Why waste billions of money and thousands of lives on both sides waging a semi-conventional war that will drag on for months thus ensuring the maximum amount of suffering and pain on both sides - instead of doing the rational thing and eliminating Ghadaffi and any member of his family able to pick up the power reigns?

Many of the present coalition countries are able, but I seriously doubt that Obama have the ba.... to do it - after all he is like a black president Carter: all talk and no action and just a temporary stand-in until a president with direction and power can show a new direction - internationally and nationally.

And I dont write that to insult anyone or be an old angry man ...

nick-bang wrote:I continually am amazed at the basic irrationality of the international community and UN.

Why waste billions of money and thousands of lives on both sides waging a semi-conventional war that will drag on for months thus ensuring the maximum amount of suffering and pain on both sides - instead of doing the rational thing and eliminating Ghadaffi and any member of his family able to pick up the power reigns?

Many of the present coalition countries are able, but I seriously doubt that Obama have the ba.... to do it - after all he is like a black president Carter: all talk and no action and just a temporary stand-in until a president with direction and power can show a new direction - internationally and nationally.

And I dont write that to insult anyone or be an old angry man ...

I would go with Neutrality in this case, save my money, put it into education, boost the existing defence force or something else instead. Gaddafi seems to have supporters, there is no info on what the Libyan people really thinks, do they support pro/anti-gaddafi forces or are they neutral. So I would refrain on picking a side and not go there to kill pro-gaddafi military and civilians in the name of "protecting civilians". Plus if Nato sent in troops to Libya, it would cost more money, money that doesn't really exist without China et all.